NOTE: Cases are added to this table when they are taken up by the Court. Note that oral argument dates may change at any time. After oral arguments, a link to the archived video recording is added. Cases are removed when the mandate issues (or, for attorney disciplinary matters, approximately 30 days after the opinion was filed).
Click on the column title to sort by that column.
| Case No. | Year | Petitioner | Respondent | Cert. Granted | Oral Arguments | Opinion Filed | Issues |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
012 | 2024 | Mayor & City Cncl. Of Balt. | Wallace | 2024-05-31 | 2024-11-08 [Oral Arguments] | 2025-07-17 [Opinion] | Natural Resources – 1) Did ACM err when it held that the Maryland Recreational Use Statute, Md. Code, Natural Resources § 5-1101, et seq., (“MRUS”) does not apply to paths in public parks, even where a local government has made the path available for recreational use? 2) Did ACM err when it held that Haley v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 211 Md. 269 (1956), applies to any path that may serve as a “public connector” between parts of the City, so that any such path in a public park is not subject to MRUS protections? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1644, Sept. Term, 2022 [Opinion] |
021 AG | 2024 | Attorney Grievance Comm'n | Mintz | 2025-09-04 [Oral Arguments] | 2025-09-04 [PC Order] | Attorney disciplinary matter. | |
027 AG | 2024 | Attorney Grievance Comm'n | Gillespie | 2025-09-04 [Oral Arguments] | Attorney disciplinary matter. | ||
001 | 2025 | Clarke | Gibson | 2025-02-21 | 2025-09-04 [Oral Arguments] | Family Law – 1) Did the trial court err in finding Petitioner’s lack of credibility was sufficient evidence for finding physical abuse when there was no other evidence of a physical assault? 2) Did the trial court err and violate Petitioner’s due process rights when the Petition for Protection failed to plead any form of physical assault or child abuse? 3) Did the trial court err when it scheduled the hearing in excess of seven days in the future without stating good cause on the record? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 143, Sept. Term, 2024 (unreported) | |
004 | 2025 | In re: Criminal Investigation CID 18-2673 | 2025-03-21 | 2025-09-05 [Oral Arguments] | Criminal Procedure – 1) Does Maryland’s attorney general have the constitutional authority to publish a report based on secret grand jury information that intentionally identifies uncharged individuals for the purpose of holding them to public account? 2) Does the state constitution authorize the governor to “direct” the attorney general to investigate and prosecute any “crimes of exploitation” for an unlimited time, and without accounting for the competing authority of the state’s attorneys and the General Assembly? 3) Did this Court’s creation in 1989 of a balancing test for release of secret grand jury information overrule its earlier authority categorically prohibiting a prosecutor from releasing information about uncharged individuals to hold them to public account? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1846, Sept. Term, 2023 (unreported) | ||
005 | 2025 | In re: Criminal Investigation CID 18-2673 | 2025-03-21 | 2025-09-05 [Oral Arguments] | Criminal Procedure – 1) Does Maryland’s attorney general have the constitutional authority to publish a report based on secret grand jury information that intentionally identifies uncharged individuals for the purpose of holding them to public account? 2) Does the state constitution authorize the governor to “direct” the attorney general to investigate and prosecute any “crimes of exploitation” for an unlimited time, and without accounting for the competing authority of the state’s attorneys and the General Assembly? 3) Did this Court’s creation in 1989 of a balancing test for release of secret grand jury information overrule its earlier authority categorically prohibiting a prosecutor from releasing information about uncharged individuals to hold them to public account? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1848, Sept. Term, 2023 (unreported) | ||
006 | 2025 | In re: Criminal Investigation CID 18-2673 | 2025-03-21 | 2025-09-05 [Oral Arguments] | Criminal Procedure – 1) Does Maryland’s attorney general have the constitutional authority to publish a report based on secret grand jury information that intentionally identifies uncharged individuals for the purpose of holding them to public account? 2) Does the state constitution authorize the governor to “direct” the attorney general to investigate and prosecute any “crimes of exploitation” for an unlimited time, and without accounting for the competing authority of the state’s attorneys and the General Assembly? 3) Did this Court’s creation in 1989 of a balancing test for release of secret grand jury information overrule its earlier authority categorically prohibiting a prosecutor from releasing information about uncharged individuals to hold them to public account? 4) Did ACM err by remanding the case to the trial court to conduct an individualized analysis when the undisputed record establishes as a matter of law that there is no particularized need to disclose Petitioners’ identities? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1849, Sept. Term, 2023 (unreported) | ||
002 | 2025 | Lyles | Santander Consumer | 2025-02-21 | 2025-09-08 | Contracts – 1) Where a separate document is never made available to, shown to, or signed by a contracting party, but that separate document is incorporated by reference into the underlying contract, is a consumer bound by the terms of that separate document despite having no knowledge of or access to the terms in that separate document? 2) When a contract contains two distinct integration clauses – one defining the rights and obligations between the buyer and the seller and the other defining the rights and obligations between the buyer and the assignee – does the assignee obtain rights under the terms of the buyer/seller integration clause? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1459, Sept. Term, 2023 [Opinion] | |
008 | 2025 | Goodrich | State | 2025-03-21 | 2025-09-08 | Constitutional Law – Did the trial court err in denying Petitioner’s request for self-representation in violation of his constitutional rights and Maryland Rule 4-215? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1050, Sept. Term, 2023 (unreported) | |
009 | 2025 | Engage Armament | Montgomery County | 2025-03-21 | 2025-09-08 | Public Safety – 1) Did the trial court correctly find that Maryland’s comprehensive system of firearms regulation preempted portions of Chapter 57 of the Montgomery County Code (to the extent that it regulates the possession, transport, sale, and transfer of firearms)? 2) Did the trial court correctly find that Chapter 57 of the County Code is not a “local law” within the meaning of Article XI-A, § 3 of the Maryland Constitution? 3) Did the trial court correctly find that Chapter 57 of the County Code affected a taking of “major components” of firearms and privately made firearms within the meaning of the Maryland Constitution, Article III, § 40, and Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights? 4) On Montgomery County’s cross-petition, did the trial court err in invalidating and prohibiting enforcement of portions of the county code that were not referenced in the operative complaint and that Petitioners placed at issue for the first time in their motion for summary judgment? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 2319, Sept. Term, 2023 (unreported) | |
001 Misc. | 2025 | Express Scripts | Anne Arundel County | 2025-09-09 | Certified Question of Law from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland 1) Under Maryland’s common law, can the licensed dispensing of, or administration of benefit plans for, a controlled substance constitute an actionable public nuisance? 2) If so, what are the elements of such a public nuisance claim, and what types of potential relief can a local government plaintiff seek when asserting such a claim? | ||
010 | 2025 | Bowens | State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. | 2025-03-21 | 2025-09-09 | Insurance Law – Does the “debt or damages claimed” against an underinsured motorist carrier include amounts paid by the tortfeasor’s liability carrier? Circuit Court for Prince George's County, No. C-16-CV-24-003510. | |
012 | 2025 | Comptroller | Potomac Edison | 2025-04-24 | 2025-10-01 | Tax General – 1) Did ACM erroneously interpret § 11-201(b) of the Tax-General Article, which exempts “tangible personal property … used directly and predominantly in a production activity” from sales-and-use tax, to apply to the equipment that Respondent uses not to produce electricity but to transmit and deliver it from out-of-state generators to its Maryland consumers? 2) In applying ACM’s erroneous interpretation of § 11-201(b) of the Tax-General Article, did the Tax Court err in concluding that much of Respondent’s transmission and delivery equipment was used “directly and predominantly” – that is more than 50 percent – in a production activity, when Respondent’s expert testified that the equipment is used both to deliver and process electricity simultaneously and concurrently and that neither delivery nor processing predominates? 3) Did ACM err in concluding that § 13-508(a) of the Tax-General Article, which governs the time within which a taxpayer may seek a refund of tax paid pursuant to an assessment by the Comptroller, supersedes the generally-applicable four-year limitations period in § 13-1104(g) and allows Respondent the refund of previously-paid sales-and-use-tax that was not paid pursuant to an assessment by the Comptroller? 4) Did ACM err by compelling the State to pay interest on Respondent’s refund claim when the evidence showed that Respondent paid the tax because of an “accounting system irregularity”, a mistake not attributable to the State? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 81, Sept. Term, 2023 [Opinion] | |
017 | 2025 | Reyes | State | 2025-05-22 | 2025-10-01 | Criminal Law – 1) When is a criminal defendant’s sentence imposed under Maryland Rule 4-345? 2) Did the trial court illegally increase Petitioner’s sentence when sentencing him to one year, suspend all but nine months, followed by three years of supervised probation but later, after advising Petitioner of his post-trial rights, changing the sentence to five years, suspend all but nine months, and three years of supervised probation? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1543, Sept. Term, 2023 [Opinion] | |
016 | 2025 | State | Stone | 2025-05-22 | 2025-10-03 The oral arguments in this matter will be held at Easton High School, Easton, Maryland. | Transportation – Do police officers have reasonable suspicion to effectuate a traffic stop for use of a mobile phone while driving, in violation of §§ 21-1124 to 21-1124.2 of the Transportation Article, when they observe a driver manipulating a mobile phone in a manner that is consistent with sending a text message or initiating a phone call? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1488, Sept. Term, 2023 (unreported) | |
020 | 2025 | Wilson | Tanglewood Venture | 2025-06-27 | 2025-10-03 The oral arguments in this matter will be held at Easton High School, Easton, Maryland. | Issues – Real Property – 1) May a court, upon request of an unlicensed landlord, require a tenant to pay rent under the rent escrow law, Md. Code, Real Property § 8-211? 2) For the purposes of determining an on-the-record versus de novo appeal, how is the amount in controversy determined in an escrow matter when the Parties’ claims differ from the amount of rent ordered to be placed into escrow and the amount placed in escrow? 3) Is an appeal of a rent escrow matter moot if, even though dangerous conditions continue unabated, the landlord agrees on appeal not to seek the rent for the unlicensed period subject to escrow or if there are collateral consequences to the trial court’s dismissal of the escrow? Circuit Court for Prince George's County, No. C-16-CV-24-002586 | |
011 | 2025 | Mayor & City Council of Baltimore Anne Arundel Cnty. City of Annapolis | B.P. P.L.C., et al. | 2025-04-24 | 2025-10-06 | Torts – From the petition for writ of certiorari: 1) Do the U.S. Constitution and federal law preempt and preclude state law claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by the effects of out-of-state and international greenhouse gas emissions on the global climate? 2) Does Maryland law preclude nuisance claims based on injuries allegedly caused by the worldwide production, promotion, and sale of a lawful consumer product? 3) Does Maryland law preclude failure-to-warn claims premised on a duty to warn every person in the world whose use of a product may have contributed to a global phenomenon with effects that allegedly harmed the plaintiff? 4) Does Maryland law preclude trespass claims based on harms allegedly caused by global climate changes arising from the use of a product by billions of third parties around the world outside of producer’s control? From the cross-petition for writ of certiorari: 1) Do appellants/cross-appellees’ complaints state claims for public and private nuisance? 2) Do appellants/cross-appellees’ complaints state claims for strict liability and negligent failure to warn? 3) Do appellants/cross-appellees’ complaints state claims for trespass. Appellate Court of Maryland, Nos. 1290, 2308, & 2309, Sept. Term, 2024 (pending) | |
015 | 2025 | Hallam | New Life Evang. Baptist Church | 2025-05-22 | 2025-10-06 | Real Property – 1) Did ACM err in holding that Respondents were able to raise their claim of fraud in post-sale exceptions filed pursuant to Rule 14-305(3)? 2) Did ACM err in holding that Respondents had preserved their right to raise their claim of fraud post-sale where they had failed to perfect their right to litigate the same fraud claim pre-sale? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 860, Sept. Term, 2023 (unreported) | |
019 | 2025 | Santana | State | 2025-06-27 | 2025-10-06 | Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Should Maryland’s double jeopardy common law bar retrial after a mistrial requested by the defendant where the mistrial was caused by the State’s recklessness? 2) In light of the clear evidence that the State’s recklessness caused the mistrial, should this Court reverse the denial of Petitioner’s motion to dismiss? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1572, Sept. Term, 2023 (unreported) | |
003 | 2025 | May. & City Cncl. of Balt. | Varghese | 2025-03-21 | 2025-10-07 | Constitutional Law – 1) Did ACM err when it held that governmental immunity for negligent infrastructure design decisions can be overcome by prior notice to the government that the design decision created a danger? 2) Did ACM’s decision that Maryland courts can adjudicate what infrastructure designs local governments should use violate the prohibition against the judicial branch assuming any of the duties of the other branches found in Article 8 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights? 3) Did ACM err when it held that Petitioner enjoyed neither common law governmental immunity nor statutory immunity under the Maryland Recreational Use Statute (§§ 5-1101 through 5-1109 of the Natural Resources Article)? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 720, Sept. Term, 2023 (unreported) | |
021 | 2025 | Carefirst Blue Choice | Skipper | 2025-06-27 | 2025-10-07 | Issues – Insurance Law – 1) Did ACM err when it applied the incorrect standard to its analysis of whether Respondents’ complaint stated claims for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation? 2) Did ACM erroneously conclude that the Respondents’ claims for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation did not fail as a matter of law based on a misinterpretation of COMAR § 31.11.06.06(B)(11) and Md. Insurance Administration Bulletin 13-01? 3) Did ACM err when it held that the mere possibility that Respondents could be entitled to pre-judgment interest is sufficient to confer standing and seek class certification under Md. law? 4) Did ACM err when, relying on Frazier v. Castle Ford, Ltd., 430 Md. 144 (2013), it found Respondents had standing to pursue their claims against Petitioner? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 2479, Sept. Term, 2023 [Opinion] | |
022 | 2025 | Strand | State | 2025-06-27 | 2025-10-07 | Issues – Criminal Law – 1) In a theft prosecution, where the State alleges a specific item stolen, but fails to prove what was stolen, should trial courts apply an essential element variance analysis or a substantial prejudice variance analysis? 2) If the trial courts apply a substantial prejudice variance analysis, was Petitioner misled such that he could not lodge an effective defense or exposed to double jeopardy where the State alleged specific items stolen but failed to prove the identity of what was taken? 3) Where an indictment for theft alleges specific items stolen but fails to prove the identity of the item stolen, is the evidence sufficient to convict? 4) Where the consolidated theft statute defines property as “anything of value”, is it a rational inference that any unidentified tangible item has value because every tangible item invariably has an ascertainable replacement cost, or does the value of an item require some evidence? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1381, Sept. Term, 2023 (unreported) | |
002 Misc | 2025 | Quinn | General Electric | Certified Question of Law from the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Under Maryland law, in a strict liability design defect claim, must a plaintiff who alleges that she was injured as a bystander (in contrast to a "user" or "consumer" as defined in Valk Manufacturing Company v. Rangaswamy, 537 A.2d 622, 629 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1988), rev'd on other grounds, 562 A.2d 1246 (Md. 1989)) prove an additional element-the element of duty-beyond the four "essential elements of an action in strict liability as set forth in [the Restatement (Second) of Torts] § 402A," Phipps v. General Motors Co., 363 A.2d 955, 958 (Md. 1976), to recover, and if so, what factors are used to determine whether a duty is owed? | |||
007 | 2025 | In re: Criminal Investigation CID 18-2673 | 2025-03-21 | Criminal Procedure – 1) Does Maryland’s attorney general have the constitutional authority to publish a report based on secret grand jury information that intentionally identifies uncharged individuals for the purpose of holding them to public account? 2) Does the state constitution authorize the governor to “direct” the attorney general to investigate and prosecute any “crimes of exploitation” for an unlimited time, and without accounting for the competing authority of the state’s attorneys and the General Assembly? 3) Did this Court’s creation in 1989 of a balancing test for release of secret grand jury information overrule its earlier authority categorically prohibiting a prosecutor from releasing information about uncharged individuals to hold them to public account? 4) Did ACM err by remanding the case to the trial court for reconsideration rather than ordering that judgment be entered in Petitioner’s favor? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1847, Sept. Term, 2023 (unreported) | |||
023 | 2025 | Carroll | State | DNA appeal. | |||
024 | 2025 | Baltimore XV Props. | Newsteps' Choice North | 2025-07-25 | Real Property – May a judgment creditor, after levy, execution and sheriff’s sale of the judgment debtor’s real property to a third-party purchaser, divest the sheriff’s sale purchaser of the purchaser’s interest in the property by accepting payment of the judgment in full from the judgment debtor and seek to have the sheriff’s sale canceled and the judgment entered as satisfied? Circuit Court for Prince George's County, No. C-16-CV-24-006056 | ||
025 | 2025 | Spicuzza | State | 2025-07-25 | Criminal Law – From the petition for writ of certiorari: 1) Does Maryland allow impeachment with prior inconsistent statements, or other “direct” attacks on a witness’s veracity, to be rebutted with evidence of the witness’s truthful character? 2) Should the petitioner’s character witnesses have been permitted to testify to his truthfulness under Md. Rules 5-608(a)(2)? 3) Does the opening-the-door doctrine apply to the otherwise-improper “why-would-they-lie” question? 4) Does an appellate court violate N. River Ins. Co. v. Mayor & City Council of Balt., 343 Md. 34 (1996), when it exercises discretion in the first instance to affirm a trial court’s evidentiary ruling? From the conditional cross-petition for writ of certiorari: 1) Did ACM incorrectly conclude that Petitioner’s continuing objection during one witness’s testimony to “all of her testimony that was subject to the 404(b) hearing with respect to sex” preserve his arguments concerning the testimony of a different witness and topics other than sex? 2) Did ACM wrongly conclude that the two different witnesses’ testimony concerning Petitioner’s uncharged conduct was not admissible as common scheme evidence? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 808, Sept. Term, 2023 (unreported) | ||
026 | 2025 | May. & City Cncl. | Baltimore | 2025-07-25 | Torts – 1) Did ACM err when it held that, for the purposes of establishing private nuisance liability, the reasonableness of defendants’ use of defendants’ land is determined solely by the significance of the interference with plaintiffs’ right to use plaintiff’s land? 2) Did ACM err when it held that for the purposes of establishing private nuisance liability, the requirement of continuousness or recurrence of the things, facts, or acts, which constitute the nuisance was met under the circumstances of this case? 3) Did ACM err when it held that the evidence presented was sufficient to support private nuisance liability against the City for a single one-day sewer backup in the plaintiffs’ basement in 2019? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 372, Sept. Term, 2024 (unreported) | ||
027 | 2025 | State, et al. | Young | 2025-07-25 | State Government – 1) Did ACM err in deciding that the attack on Respondent by fellow inmates comprised two separate “incidents” or “occurrences” within the meaning of the Maryland Tort Claims Act, thus exposing the State to liability of $800,000 rather than $400,000? 2) Did ACM err in affirming the judgments against individual State personnel as “enforceable” against the State, rather than vacating and directing entry of judgment against the State? 3) Did ACM err in holding that Prince George’s County v. Longtin, 419 Md. 450 (2011), applies to the State, where that case approved of pattern-or-practice liability only for local governments? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1885, Sept. Term, 2023 [Opinion] | ||
028 | 2025 | Ft. Detrick/Walter Reed Army Med. Housing | Wynn | 2025-08-20 | Constitutional Law – Does the Enclave Clause of the United States Constitution pre-empt County licensure regulations applicable to: (a) the petitioner’s entire apartment complex; or (b) if not, units rented to civilians? Circuit Court for Montgomery County, No. C-15-CV-24-003800. | ||
029 | 2025 | Jun | State | 2025-08-20 | Criminal Law – Did the trial court erroneously allow a lay witness, instead of a properly qualified expert, to testify about the nature and evidentiary significance of IP addresses and business records from the social media application “Kik”? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 2232, Sept. Term, 2023 [Opinion] | ||
030 | 2025 | Diversified Construction Cleaning | Hencken & Gaines | 2025-08-20 | Contracts – Did the District Court err or abuse its discretion in awarding judgment to the respondent for breach of contract? Circuit Court for Baltimore County, No. C-03-CV-24-004539. |